“The schematic nature of this procedure is evident from the fact that the mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same” (Horkheimer & Adorno 55)
Through this quote, Horkheimer and Adorno argue that products that have the same purpose, but have slight differentiations are ultimately the same. They are saying that two products of different brands that have the same end result are interchangeable. The only difference between the two products is the cultural significance that society allocates to specific brands. With this point of view, there is actually no freedom of choice in choosing products because they are all ultimately the same. In class, we spoke about the example of cell phones. We named the various brands and differentiated them, but ultimately they are all the same. All cell phones have the same purpose of being a tool for communication. At their core, they are used for speaking to other people either over the phone or virtually using a messaging app. The difference between cell phones is the cultural significance that society gives to them. In today’s society, having an apple iphone is considered superior because society has deemed apple to be top of line. This occurs honestly in every product that is on the market. Another example is a Gucci purse and a Target purse. Both purses have the exact same purpose of being a bag to put stuff in. The Gucci bag is way more expensive and idolized because of cultural significance. People who have a lot of money or are famous tend to purchase expensive brands such as Gucci and are constantly photographed or seen out wearing the brand. These people have such high status in the eyes of the less rich classes and thus use their status to give cultural significance to a brand. The people idolizing these celebrities feel more secure about themselves when they are able to carry the more expensive brand over a more reasonably priced brand. I believe that we need to stop giving cultural significance to every product because all it is doing is further separating the social classes and making people who can not afford a certain brand feel less than. We should accept all products, name brand or not, because they all have the same purpose.
This also reminds me of how we have subsidized agriculture in America. We have so many different brands of food, but ultimately, they’re all traced back to the same source. Anything made out of corn, for example, can be traced back to the same farms that all corn-based products come from. Everything is owned by a handful of companies, but the colorful boxes on the shelves will try to convince you otherwise.
ReplyDeleteEven organic and fair trade options are from the same companies that release products without those labels. Lobbyists make it easy for corporations to label their foods with these labels, even if they don’t fit the definition of these terms. Hershey’s, for example, owns the brand Dagoba, which is supposedly “inspired chocolate empowering women.” Looking at the packaging, it would almost be impossible to know this connection. Hershey’s gets most of its cacao from farms that utilize child labor, and an informed consumer wanting to avoid this may buy Dagoba, which brands itself on feminism, organics, and fair trade. In the end though, the consumer is still manipulated into lining the pockets of the Hershey’s CEO, which is especially malicious considering organic brands often cost more. Dagoba chocolate claims to help women in poverty in 3rd world countries, and yet, by purchasing it, the consumer is upholding the very systems that keep these women in poverty.
The phrase “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” comes to mind. The best thing we can do is try to stay informed about our consumption, as living within a capitalist system means we have to do things that will uphold the structure of it as well. Consumption isn’t activism, as much as corporations would want us to believe that, and in order to improve the material conditions of these people we will have to go directly to the source.